ANNUAL PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT · Sheriffs’ program performance. That committee met with the respective Sheriffs and developed criteria mutually agreed upon for an

Florida Sheriffs Performing

Child Protective Investigations

ANNUAL

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION REPORT

*Broward County Sheriff * Hillsborough County Sheriff * Pinellas County Sheriff * Pasco County Sheriff * Seminole County Sheriff * Manatee County Sheriff *

Fiscal Year 2014-2015

Conducted jointly by the Florida Department of Children and Families and the

Sheriff Offices of Broward, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco,

Pinellas and Seminole Counties

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 3 EVALUATION PLAN AND DESIGN ............................................................................................................ 4 QUALITY PERFORMANCE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 5 OUTCOME MEASURES AND STANDARDS .............................................................................................. 5 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 6 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 6 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION .............................................................................................. 6 SHERIFF’S INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD PROTECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS IN FLORIDA .......................... 6

ANNUALIZE DATA ON ABUSE REPORTS…………………………………………………………...…...……………8

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN AND DESIGN ............................................................................. 17

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................................................................................................... 17 DEVELOPMENT OF THE EVALUATION DESIGN AND PLAN .............................................................................. 17 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND SIZE .......................................................................................................... 18

QUALITY PERFORMANCE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 19

PEER REVIEW TEAMS ................................................................................................................................ 19 REVIEW INSTRUMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 20 ASSESSING PERFORMANCE ....................................................................................................................... 20

OUTCOME MEASURES ATTAINMENT .................................................................................................... 20

MEASURES AND STANDARDS ..................................................................................................................... 21 SOURCES OF DATA AND ANALYSIS METHODS ............................................................................................ .21

QUALITY PERFORMANCE (CASE REVIEWS) ........................................................................................ 21

MANATEE COUNTY .................................................................................................................................... 23 PASCO COUNTY ........................................................................................................................................ 25 BROWARD COUNTY ................................................................................................................................... 27 HILLSBOROUGHCOUNTY ............................................................................................................................ 29 PINELLAS COUNTY .................................................................................................................................... 31 SEMINOLE COUNTY ................................................................................................................................... 33

OUTCOME MEASURES ATTAINMENT .................................................................................................... 35

ANNUAL OUTCOMES FOR COMMENCEMENTS OF REPORTS WITHIN 24 HOURS ............................................... 36 ANNUAL OUTCOMES FOR VICTIMS SEEN WITHIN 24 HOURS OF CASE RECEIVED.............................................44

ADDITIONAL OUTCOME PERFORMANCE.........................................................................................51

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 54 COST EFFICIENCY .................................................................................................................................... 56

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

In the mid-1990s, a Sheriff Office pilot program with the Manatee Sheriff’s Office to assume child protective investigations led to legislation in 1998 to expand the piloted model. The expansion in 1999 added Sheriff Offices in Pasco, Pinellas and Broward counties. Legislation transferred full responsibility for child protective investigations to these Sheriffs in FY 1998-1999. In 2000, the Seminole County Sheriff assumed the role, followed by Hillsborough County in 2005. Citrus County Sheriff assumed the role in 2007, however in 2012 it was assumed back by DCF. These six current Sheriff Offices: Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Broward, Hillsborough and Seminole encompass metropolitan areas where more than a quarter of the state’s population resides. This fiscal year for which this 16th annual report represents was exceptionally active across the state. The Florida legislature passed legislation that implemented multiple enhancements within the dependency statute to incorporate safety methodology in statewide definitions and practices. The Department actively began statewide training programs for the implementation of the Florida Safety Decision Making Methodology practices. During this fiscal year, Sheriff Offices handled 25.58% of the state’s investigations and are an essential element in moving forward with shared values, principles and efforts the Department seeks for enhancing Florida’s child protection system. The longstanding commitment of the Sheriff Offices involved in child protective investigations toward engaging families, protecting children, and working in partnership within their communities remains consistent and strong. Several of these protocols received local, state and national recognition and respect for the best practice, community-based collaborations for their investigative responses. Annual oversight of the Sheriff Offices initially defined under Chapter 98–180, Laws of Florida, required a committee of seven persons appointed by the Governor to address Sheriffs’ program performance. That committee met with the respective Sheriffs and developed criteria mutually agreed upon for an annual review. The committee held the responsibility for submitting an annual report regarding quality performance, outcome measure attainment and cost efficiency. In 2000, Chapter 2000-139, Laws of Florida, the committee ended and an annual report on program performance by the Sheriff Offices became mandated. The mandated annual review shall use criteria mutually agreed upon by the Sheriffs and the Department. This report completed by a team of Peer Reviewers from the Sheriff Offices with support from the Department, addresses quality performance, outcome measure attainment, and cost efficiency.

4

EVALUATION PLAN AND DESIGN

The evaluation questions are based upon language in subsection 39.3065(3)(d), F.S. In summary, these questions are:

1. How does the quality of performance involving the Sheriff Offices conducting child protective investigations comply with the requirements of Chapter 39, F.S.?

2. Have the participating Sheriff Offices achieved the performance standards and outcome measures specified in their grant agreements?

3. Are the participating Sheriff Offices performing child protective investigations in a cost efficient manner?

Representatives from the six Sheriff Offices with support from the Department comprised the program evaluation planning team. The Sheriff Representatives were: Broward County Sheriff

Major Audrey Jones, Program Administrator Joseph Paduano, Child Protective Investigation (CPI) Supervisor

Seminole County Sheriff

Capt. Jennifer Jenkins, Captain Jay Saucer, Quality Assurance

Pinellas County Sheriff

Brandi Lazaris, Program Administrator Shawn Wilson, Supervisor

Hillsborough County Sheriff

Jennifer Hock, Program Administrator Susan Eichler, Manager

Pasco County Sheriff

Ken Lilian, Director Rebecca Wilkinson-Shields, Assistant Program Director

Manatee County Sheriff Melissa Lancsarics, Director

Joyce Edick, Operations Program Specialist. In 2015, the planning committee made several modifications to the existing Sheriff Peer Review Tool for closed cases. The modifications on the review tool reduced the twenty-three (23) standards to eighteen (18) standards. Several of the standards that were removed were incorporated into existing standards. One standard became obsolete as FL investigations moved from completing investigative summaries to completing family functioning assessments.

5

For the open case review, the tool was changed to reflect many of the items in the current DCF tool and timeframe used for the Rapid Safety Feedback & Secondary Case Review Instrument. Since 2014, there were changes with the tier level criteria as well as the specific questions in the tool. In 2014, the DCF Rapid Safety Feedback/Secondary Case Review tool had five principal questions with multiple sub questions. In 2015, DCF amended the tool to four principal questions.

QUALITY PERFORMANCE REVIEW

In 2015, the Sheriff’s Peer Review process included four days of onsite visits for each Sheriff’s location, with some going five days if the review time warranted it. Local Operating Procedures and management practices are available as a part of the teams’ allowable review, but the local practices are not rated in the overall final review. Selected closed and open casework was reviewed at each Sheriff’s site. The overall score for each Sheriff’s Office includes only the results of the internal case file review and the side-by-side review, and was calculated using the Sheriff’s Peer Review Access database with each file receiving equal weight in scoring.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND STANDARDS

Subsection 39.3065(3)(b), F.S., requires that the Sheriffs performing child protective investigations operate, at a minimum, in accordance with the performance standards and outcome measures established for protective investigations conducted by the Department. The General Appropriations Act sets forth appropriations allocated through multi-year Grant Agreements with the six Sheriff Offices performing child protective investigations. The Grant Agreements cite three performance measures for the Sheriffs and the Department’s circuits/region:

1. One hundred percent (100%) of investigations commenced within 24 hours,

2. Eighty-five percent (85%) of victims seen within 24 hours of a report received, and

3. One hundred percent (100%) of Child Safety Assessment (CSA) reports reviewed by supervisors are in accordance with the Department’s timeframes.

These measures amended the Grant Agreements beginning July 2010. For FY 2010-2011 the report eliminated the 60-day case closure measure and replaced it with a performance measure tracking the timeliness of victims seen within 24 hours of a report received by the Florida Abuse Hotline. Users enter the data for these performance measures and others into the Florida Safe Families Network (FSFN). This system produces management reports used for determining statewide performance and outcomes.

6

CONCLUSIONS QUALITY PERFORMANCE REVIEW Florida Sheriffs’ involvement in child protection investigations began in the mid-1990s when calls for reform led to successful pilots that spurred legislative commitment to implement statutory changes. During this time, the Legislature also passed new statutes requiring the outsourcing of foster care and related services statewide. It was the Legislature’s intent to encourage communities and other stakeholders interested in the well-being of children to participate in assuring that children were safe and well nurtured in their local community. The Department moved aggressively and successfully outsourced the state’s foster care and related services to community-based care lead agencies. Including contracting with Sheriffs’ Offices. Florida follows legislative intent and federal law to monitor outcomes related to child safety, permanency, and well-being. Protective investigations ensure children are safe through the application of a present danger assessment at the onset of the investigation and an impending danger assessment after sufficient information has been gathered to assess family functioning.

INTRODUCTION PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

This 16th Annual Sheriff Offices Peer Review Report complies with section 39.3065(3)(d), Florida Statute concerning quality performance, outcome-measure attainment, and cost efficiency. A team of Peer Reviewers from both Sheriff and Department staff complete casework audits on both closed and open investigations, a component of the annual evaluation. The report originated by legislation passed in 1998 [Chapter 98-180] and dictated original program performance oversight of Sheriff Offices performing child protective duties in the respective counties came from a committee of seven persons appointed by the Governor. In 2000, the law changed regarding the annual review to have criteria mutually agreed upon by the Sheriffs and the Department. Requirements amended in subsequence years placed the annual review under the mutual participation of both Sheriff Offices and the Department for the Sheriff Offices’ program evaluation.

`

SHERIFFS’ INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD PROTECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS

The Department’s Florida Safe Families Network (FSFN) population data for FY 2014-2015 listed on the following page shows 27% of Florida’s child population residing within a county where the Sheriff performs child protective investigations.

7

The six counties conducting child protective investigations received 25.84% of initial, additional and special condition intake reports received in Florida for FY 2014-2015. This totaled 54,106 intakes for the respective Sheriff Offices.

Sources: Child Population; Initial, Additional, Special Condition Reports; and % State’s Total for Sheriffs and CBCs is taken from the monthly FSFN Report entitled “Child Investigations Received by Intake Sequence Type Statewide by District by Agency.” Initial, Additional, Special Condition Reports for DCF investigations is taken from the monthly FSFN Report entitled “Child Investigations Received by Intake Sequence Type Statewide by District by County.

8

ANNUALIZED DATA ON ABUSE REPORTS:

The following tables provide data for each of the six Sheriff Counties for incoming intakes by type. The tables then lists the statewide percentage of reports that the county received.

Seminole County Sheriff Seminole County Sheriff’s Office received 4,565 intakes, which averaged 380 intakes monthly in FY 2014-2015.

The term “Initial” references both to in-home and institutional investigations received on child/ren. The term “Additional” references new allegations concerning a child/ren that are received during a timeframe where there is already open and active initial investigation in progress.

Special condition referrals are intakes that include: (1) child-on-child sexual abuse, (2) parent seeking assistance, (3) child is without custodial care or supervision as the caregiver/parent is reported as unavailable. In Seminole county the Special Condition Intakes accounted for 7 ½% of the intake workload.

Seminole County, Florida had a monthly average of 3.58 intake reports received per 1,000 children residing in the county. This equates to Seminole County’s reporting rate for FY 2014-2015 (twelve months) at 43.03 reports for every 1,000 children residing in the county.

Month


Initial Additional Special

Condition Total

Reports

% of state's total

child Report

rate per 1,000*

Jul-14 289 21 35 345 2.04 3.16

Aug-14 299 25 30 354 2.06 3.3

Sep-14 367 36 24 427 2.37 4.11

Oct-14 370 37 25 432 2.28 4.15

Nov-14 316 31 39 386 2.4 3.53

Dec-14 300 25 26 351 2.18 3.31

Jan-15 330 30 25 385 2.06 3.67

Feb-15 336 25 26 387 2.23 3.68

Mar-15 316 32 23 371 1.93 3.54

Apr-15 333 43 42 418 2.11 3.85

May-15 342 27 24 393 2 3.76

Jun-15 269 23 24 316 1.82 2.97

FY 14-15 Statewide Average

3,867 355 343 4,565 2.12 3.5858

Total Annual Rate

43.03

1

1 Source DCF FSFN Monthly Report: Child Investigations Received by Intake Sequence Type – Statewide by Agency. Child

Report rate is representative of Initial & Additional Reports received during the month per 1,000 child population.

9

Broward County Sheriff Broward Sheriff’s Office received 15,944 intakes, which averaged 1,328 intakes monthly in FY 2014-2015. The term “Initial” references both to in-home and institutional investigations received on child/ren. The term “Additional” references new allegations concerning a child/ren that are received during a timeframe where there is already open and active initial investigation in progress. Special condition referrals are intakes that include: (1) child-on-child sexual abuse, (2) parent seeking assistance, (3) child is without custodial care or supervision as the caregiver/parent is reported unavailable. In Broward County, the Special Condition intakes accounted for 8% of the intake workload. Broward County, Florida had a monthly average of 2.99 intake reports received per 1,000 children residing in the county. This equates to Broward County’s reporting rate for FY 2014-2015 (twelve months) at 35.9 reports for every 1,000 children residing in the county.

Month

Broward County Sheriff


Condition Total

Reports

% of state's total

child Report

rate per 1,000*

Jul-14 977 127 90 1,194 8.04 2.7

Aug-14 1,018 132 80 1,230 7.99 2.82

Sep-14 1,124 143 135 1,402 8.1 3.1

Oct-14 1,248 159 123 1,530 8.62 3.45

Nov-14 970 145 107 1,222 8.26 2.73

Dec-14 927 142 96 1,165 7.77 2.62

Jan-15 1,193 168 97 1,458 8.69 3.33

Feb-15 1,056 141 101 1,298 7.97 2.93

Mar-15 1,117 133 101 1,351 7.48 3.06

Apr-15 1,219 134 122 1,475 7.85 3.31

May-15 1,121 157 111 1,389 7.69 3.13

Jun-15 980 137 113 1,230 8.18 2.73 FY 14-15

Statewide Average

12,950 1718 1276 15,944 8.05 2.9925

Total Annual Rate

35.9

2

2 Source DCF FSFN Monthly Report: Child Investigations Received by Intake Sequence Type – Statewide by Agency. Child Report

rate is representative of Initial & Additional Reports received during the month per 1,000 child population.

10

Hillsborough County Sheriff Hillsborough Sheriff’s Office received 12,963 intakes, which averaged 1,080 intakes monthly in FY 2014-2015. The term “Initial” references both to in-home and institutional investigations received on child/ren. The term “Additional” references new allegations concerning a child/ren that are received during a timeframe where there is already open and active initial investigation in progress. Special condition referrals are intakes that include: (1) child-on-child sexual abuse, (2) parent seeking assistance, (3) child is without custodial care or supervision as the caregiver/parent is reported unavailable. In Hillsborough County, the Special Condition intakes accounted for 7% of the intake workload. Hillsborough County, Florida had a monthly average of 3.35 intake reports received per 1,000 children residing in the county. This equates to Hillsborough County’s reporting rate for FY 2014-2015 (twelve months) at 40.2 reports for every 1,000 children residing in the county.

Month



Condition Total

Reports

% of state's total

child Report

rate per 1,000*

Jul-14 822 83 105 1,010 6.29 3.03

Aug-14 808 77 80 965 5.72 2.96

Sep-14 970 74 86 1,130 5.99 3.49

Oct-14 912 94 96 1,102 5.76 3.36

Nov-14 742 76 69 887 5.49 2.73

Dec-14 820 84 69 973 6.01 3.02

Jan-15 964 106 62 1,132 6.18 3.58

Feb-15 971 95 49 1,115 6.42 3.57

Mar-15 1057 125 84 1,266 7.4 3.95

Apr-15 1,042 102 71 1,215 6.15 3.83

May-15 1,034 93 95 1,222 6.27 3.77

Jun-15 803 67 76 946 5.88 2.91 FY 14-15

Statewide Average

10,945 1076 942 12,963 6.13 3.3500

Total Annual Rate

40.2

3



11

Manatee County Sheriff Manatee County Sheriff’s Office received 4,698 intakes, which averaged 391 intakes monthly in FY 2014-2015. The term “Initial” references both to in-home and institutional investigations received on child/ren. The term “Additional” references new allegations concerning a child/ren that are received during a timeframe where there is already open and active initial investigation in progress. Special condition referrals are intakes that include: (1) child-on-child sexual abuse, (2) parent seeking assistance, (3) child is without custodial care or supervision as the caregiver/parent is reported unavailable. In Manatee County, the Special Condition intakes accounted for 7% of the intake workload. Manatee County, Florida had a monthly average of 5.53 intake reports received per 1,000 children residing in the county. This equates to Manatee County’s reporting rate for FY 2014-2015 (twelve months) at 66.43 reports for every 1,000 children residing in the county.

Month

Manatee County Sheriff


Condition Total

Reports

% of state's total

child Report

rate per 1,000*

Jul-14 292 26 27 345 2.04 4.86

Aug-14 306 22 25 353 2.06 5.01

Sep-14 350 33 39 422 2.29 5.85

Oct-14 349 37 24 410 2.17 5.9

Nov-14 302 29 32 363 2.2 5.06

Dec-14 322 31 30 383 2.36 5.39

Jan-15 342 45 29 416 2.24 5.91

Feb-15 348 34 30 412 2.34 5.84

Mar-15 367 33 24 424 2.14 6.11

Apr-15 309 34 26 369 1.87 5.24

May-15 379 30 29 438 2.21 6.25

Jun-15 294 34 35 363 2.17 5.01 FY 14-15

Statewide Average

3,960 388 350 4,698 2.17 5.5358

Total Annual Rate

66.43

4



12

Pasco County Sheriff Pasco County Sheriff’s Office received 5,906 intakes, which averaged 492 intakes monthly in FY 2014-2015. The term “Initial” references both to in-home and institutional investigations received on child/ren. The term “Additional” references new allegations concerning a child/ren that are received during a timeframe where there is already open and active initial investigation in progress. Special condition referrals are intakes that include: (1) child-on-child sexual abuse, (2) parent seeking assistance, (3) child is without custodial care or supervision as the caregiver/parent is reported unavailable. In Pasco County, the Special Condition intakes accounted for 5% of the intake workload. Pasco County, Florida had a monthly average of 5.16 intake reports received per 1,000 children residing in the county. This equates to Pasco County’s reporting rate for FY 2014-2015 (twelve months) at 62.01 reports for every 1,000 children residing in the county.

Month



Condition Total

Reports

% of state's total

child Report

rate per 1,000*

Jul-14 389 31 35 455 2.77 4.66

Aug-14 385 34 25 444 2.62 4.65

Sep-14 455 39 25 519 2.78 5.49

Oct-14 429 66 21 516 2.75 5.5

Nov-14 377 47 35 459 2.82 4.71

Dec-14 357 47 19 423 2.63 4.49

Jan-15 437 52 23 512 2.78 5.45

Feb-15 414 59 23 496 2.82 5.25

Mar-15 424 49 29 502 2.59 5.25

Apr-15 477 74 32 583 2.88 6.12

May-15 457 61 25 543 2.79 5.75

Jun-15 365 57 32 454 2.75 4.69 FY 14-15

Statewide Average

4,966 616 324 5,906 2.75 5.1675

Total Annual Rate

62.01

5



13

Pinellas County Sheriff In analysis of received intakes for Pinellas Sheriff’s Office received 10,030 intakes, which averaged 835 intakes monthly in FY 2014-2015. The term “Initial” references both to in-home and institutional investigations received on child/ren. The term “Additional” references new allegations concerning a child/ren that are received during a timeframe where there is already open and active initial investigation in progress. Special condition referrals are intakes that include: (1) child-on-child sexual abuse, (2) parent seeking assistance, (3) child is without custodial care or supervision as the caregiver/parent is reported unavailable. In Pinellas County, the Special Condition intakes accounted for 6% of the intake workload. Pinellas County, Florida had a monthly average of 4.62 intake reports received per 1,000 children residing in the county. This equates to Pinellas County’s reporting rate for FY 2014-2015 (twelve months) at 55.5 reports for every 1,000 children residing in the county.

Month



Condition Total

Reports

% of state's total

child Report

rate per 1,000*

Jul-14 651 59 58 768 4.73 4.13

Aug-14 633 73 38 744 4.37 4.1

Sep-14 733 79 63 875 2.78 5.49

Oct-14 776 85 46 907 4.76 5

Nov-14 625 69 36 730 4.6 4.03

Dec-14 628 84 51 763 4.61 4.14

Jan-15 740 115 50 905 4.86 4.97

Feb-15 737 105 56 898 5.18 4.89

Mar-15 751 107 65 923 4.78 4.99

Apr-15 721 94 47 862 4.22 4.74

May-15 761 87 59 907 4.72 4.93

Jun-15 630 73 45 748 4.52 4.09 FY 14-15

Statewide Average

8,386 1030 614 10,030 4.51 4.6250

Total Annual Rate

55.5

6



14

ANNUALIZED DATA ON ABUSE REPORTS REPORTING OF CHILD ABUSE IN FLORIDA Florida’s abuse hotline accepts five types of child intake reports:

1. In-home reports reference alleged maltreatments by a child’s caregiver. 2. Institutional reports reference alleged maltreatments of a child by another person

responsible outside of their caregiver (i.e.: incident at school, childcare facility, etc.).

3. Child-on-child referrals are intakes that reference allegation of a child displaying an inappropriate sexual behavior or alleged juvenile sexual offense.

4. Human Trafficking maltreatments have been accepted in Florida since 2009 and often do not have the alleged person responsible as a caregiver.

5. Special condition referrals: a. Parent Unavailable b. Parent in need of Assistance (PNA) c. Foster Care Referrals

The Florida Legislature in 2012 enhanced reporting requirements to include the Florida Abuse Hotline accepting reports of allegations of child abuse by adult non-caregivers to be forwarded to law enforcement of jurisdiction. These are accepted and forwarded through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to local Sheriff’s Office using the FDLE Florida Messaging System. The Department’s computer system therefore contains additional intakes that are screened out for DCF yet forwarded to LEO of jurisdiction. The Florida Abuse Hotline in FY 2014-2015 screened in 209,320 child intakes. This consisted of 170,994 initial intake reports: 21,356 additional intake reports and 16,970 special condition intake referrals. This was 9,505 more intakes than FY 2013-2014 that was 199,815 intake reports and referrals. This was a 4.7% increase from the prior year. The six Sheriff Offices were responsible for 54,095 of these intake reports and referrals or 25.84% of the statewide total. This was an increase of 2,557 intakes from FY 2013-2014. Totals for Sheriff Offices collectively increased by 4.9% for FY 2014-2015. Community Based Care Lead Agencies (CBC) handle intake referrals referencing foster care licensing concerns. In FY 2014-2015, the CBC’s handled 1,560 such referrals accounting for 9% of the statewide total of the special condition referrals. They handled only 868 in fiscal year 2013-2014. The number of foster care referrals handled in this past fiscal year increased 79.6% due to the 691 additional foster care referrals received over FY 2013-2014.

15

DCF TotalCBC

Total

Sheriff

Total

Statewide

TotalDCF Total

CBC

Total

Sheriff

Total

Statewide

TotalDCF Total

CBC

Total

Sheriff

Total

Statewide

TotalDCF Total

CBC

Total

Sheriff

Total

Statewide

Total

Jul-14 9,520 0 3,420 12,940 1,198 0 347 1,545 910 125 350 1,385 11,628 125 4,117 15,870

Aug-14 10,127 0 3,449 13,576 1,226 0 363 1,589 885 122 278 1,285 12,238 122 4,090 16,450

Sep-14 10,924 0 3,999 14,923 1,348 0 404 1,752 1,017 143 372 1,532 13,289 143 4,775 18,207

Oct-14 11,073 0 4,084 15,157 1,448 0 478 1,926 1,034 153 335 1,522 13,555 153 4,897 18,605

Nov-14 9,386 0 3,332 12,718 1,186 0 397 1,583 894 103 312 1,309 11,466 103 4,041 15,610

Dec-14 9,590 0 3,354 12,944 1,211 0 413 1,624 914 135 286 1,335 11,715 135 4,053 15,903

Jan-15 10,875 0 4,006 14,881 1,322 0 516 1,838 877 133 286 1,296 13,074 133 4,808 18,015

Feb-15 10,193 0 3,862 14,055 1,284 0 459 1,743 885 106 285 1,276 12,362 106 4,606 17,074

Mar-15 11,260 0 4,032 15,292 1,502 0 479 1,981 1,085 120 326 1,531 13,847 120 4,837 18,804

Apr-15 11,885 1 4,101 15,987 1,584 0 481 2,065 1,061 135 340 1,536 14,530 136 4,922 19,588

May-15 11,423 0 4,094 15,517 1,523 0 455 1,978 1,103 153 343 1,599 14,049 153 4,892 19,094

Jun-15 9,663 0 3,341 13,004 1,341 0 391 1,732 908 131 325 1,364 11,912 131 4,057 16,100

Annual

Totals125,919 1 45,074 170,994 16,173 0 5,183 21,356 11,573 1,559 3,838 16,970 153,665 1,560 54,095 209,320

Initial Reports Additional Reports Special Condition Intakes Initial, Additional & SC Intakes FY 2014-

2015

7 Child reporting rates vary significantly in Florida’s 67 counties. Department monthly data on the reporting rates (initial and additional intakes) that were received per 1,000 children population showed a statewide increase in FY 2014-2015 of 46.47 per 1,000 child population. The rate is trending upward when compared to the previous two fiscal years:

FY 2013-2014 annualized reporting rate of 45.34 per 1,000 child population FY 2012-2013 annualized reporting rate of 44.04 per 1,000 child population

Statewide Reporting Rate

Sheriff Reporting Rates

Rate of Initial & Additional Reports Received during month per 1000 Child Population

Rate of Initial & Additional Reports Received during month per 1000 Child Population

Month Rate Per Month Month 12 Month Average

Jul-14 3.50 Seminole 3.5858

Aug-14 3.66 Broward 2.9925

Sep-14 4.03 Hillsborough 3.3500

Oct-14 4.13 Manatee 5.5358

Nov-14 3.45 Pasco 5.1675

Dec-14 3.52 Pinellas 4.6250

Jan-15 4.04 Sheriff Average 4.2094

Feb-15 3.82

Mar-15 4.17

Apr-15 4.36

May-15 4.23

Jun-15 3.56 FY 14-15

Statewide Average 3.87

Total Annual Rate 46.47

7 . Source DCF FSFN Monthly Report: Child Investigations Received by Intake Sequence Type – Statewide by Agency.

16

The Federal Government, US Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Children’s Bureau collects related data from the majority of US States on their reporting rates and publishes the information annually. The latest report8 records data from 2013 and documents a national average of screened-in reports at 61% and Florida’s screened-in reports at 71%. Each county Sheriff handles various requests received from of other states and/or other countries for child protective investigation assistance. Most requests include obtaining records, conducting a child-welfare check, verification of information, etc. The work volume associated with such requests (also known as, “out-of-town inquires” (OTI’s) and inter-state requests varies from county to county but is estimated by the Sheriffs to account for an average of 10% of incoming casework assigned to child protective investigators. These requests for assistance are not officially tabulated or captured by DCF as a workload element when capturing active caseloads.

8 Child Maltreatment 2013 (Publication) Children’s Bureau -

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2013.pdf http://cwoutcomes.acf.hhs.gov/data/overview/clear_index

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2013.pdf

http://cwoutcomes.acf.hhs.gov/data/overview/clear_index

17

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PLAN AND DESIGN: The six Sheriff’s Offices participated in this FY 2014-2015 annual sheriff’s case review along with Department personnel from the Office of Child Welfare and various regions. The site visits in 2015 were conducted from September 2015 through November 2015.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

The program performance questions for this evaluation were based upon language in ss. 39.3065(3)(d), F.S. These questions are:

1. How does the quality of performance involving the Sheriffs’ Offices conducting child protective investigations comply with the requirements of Chapter 39, F.S.?

2. Have the participating Sheriffs’ Offices achieved the performance standards and outcome measures specified in their grant agreements?

3. Are the participating Sheriffs’ Offices performing child protective investigations in a cost efficient manner?

DEVELOPMENT OF THE EVALUATION DESIGN AND PLAN

At a Sherriff's Annual Workshop sponsored by DCF on June 4, 2015 in Tampa, FL both DCF and Sheriff Representatives agreed to incorporate the DCF Rapid Safety Feedback & Secondary Case Review Instrument, as a part of the annual peer review. The DCF Rapid Safety Feedback & Secondary Case Review process assesses investigation decision making related to child safety on open reports open seven (7) to (10) days and then again at the 45-50 mark. The cases for review are stratified using a three-tier process. The processes explained in detail further in this report were incorporated with the onsite sheriff reviews. This process incorporated multiple face-to-face interviews with the active investigators/supervisors and the peers reviewers. Therefore, additional time for consultations and follow up interviews was incorporated into the peer review process. Reviewers concerns on casework had to be addressed within 24-hours of consultation and then staffed with the peer reviewer. Typically, Sheriff QA reviewers re-staff cases at 30 to 40 days or later. Additionally, peer review teams conduct an evaluation of randomly selected closed judicial investigations. This review assesses compliance to statutory requirements, quality of investigations, safety decisions and safety actions implemented through the entire case through closure and transfer to a Community-Based Care Agency. For the closed case file reviews, peer review teams assess practice in 18 areas from initial response through emergency removal.

18

SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND SIZE

The Peer Review assessment of both open and closed child protective investigative casework required different timeframes. For closed investigative casework to be eligible for review, the work was required to be performed from January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015. Additionally, it had to result in judicial actions to be implemented in the same timeframes. These particular closed judicial reports were extracted by the Office of Child Welfare and then forwarded to the local offices. There were thirty-five (35) closed judicial cases selected. The open investigative reviews were based on open in-home non-judicial reports that were seven to ten days old and open at the time of the peer reviewers making their annual visit. The Department’s Rapid Safety Feedback & Secondary Review cases were selected electronically in FSFN by criteria on the date of the reviewers visit. There were thirty (30) open in-home non-judicial cases selected for the open case review. The Department’s Rapid Safety Feedback & Secondary Review cases were selected from Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 to comprise an array of in-home investigations. The cases in each tier incorporated the following criteria: Tier One

(1) Youngest victim aged 0-3, and (2) Allegations of Family Violence Threatens Child, and (3) Allegations of any type of Substance Misuse (Substance Misuse, Substance

Misuse-Alcohol, Substance Misuse-Illicit Drugs, Substance Misuse-Prescription Drugs), AND at least one of the following: (a) Bone Fracture, or (b) Burns, or (c) Internal Injuries, or (d) Sexual Abuse, any form (Sexual Abuse, Sexual Abuse-Sexual Battery, Sexual Abuse-Sexual Exploitation by Parent, Sexual Abuse-Sexual Molestation).

Tier Two

(1) There is at least one prior report on the child victim, another child victim in the home, or the alleged caregiver responsible and (this is consistent with our current guideline)

(2) Youngest victim aged 0-3, and (3) Allegations of Family Violence Threatens Child, and (4) Allegations of any type of Substance Misuse (Substance Misuse, Substance

Misuse-Alcohol, Substance Misuse-Illicit Drugs, Substance Misuse-Prescription Drugs)

Tier Three

(1) There is at least one prior report on the child victim, another child victim in the home, or the alleged caregiver responsible and

(2) Youngest victim is under 12 months of age and

19

(3) Allegations of any type of Substance Misuse (Substance Misuse, Substance Misuse-Alcohol, Substance Misuse-Illicit Drugs, Substance Misuse-Prescription Drugs), and

(4) Allegations of physical injury maltreatment.

QUALITY PERFORMANCE REVIEW PEER REVIEW TEAMS The Department of Children and Families provided thirteen (13) quality assurance staff to participate on the peer review teams with at least two (2) staff assigned to each review. Pursuant to s. 39.3065(3)(d), F.S., the program performance evaluation is required to be conducted by a team of Peer Reviewers comprised of representatives from Sheriff Offices and the Department. The Department’s Quality Assurance program and the Sheriff Offices jointly developed the approach to the annual Peer Review. The teams at each location select a lead person to oversee the orderly distribution of the work among the reviewers. The Sheriff Offices have always elected to allow the visiting team to complete all reviews and the sheriff office under review does not participate in the cases under review at their location. The statutory references a, “team of peer reviewers.” In this and all prior annual performance evaluations Sheriff and Department personnel who perform protective investigations and have respective quality assurance experience comprises the peer review team. An entrance conference is conducted at each location clarifying to the reviewers the specific unique operational systems incorporated within their county. The teams were onsite for four to five days completing the reviews and exit conferences. The Sheriff Offices consistently sent the same reviewers to all six sites. The scheduling of the reviews in the fall is set every other week from September through November. All Sheriff Peer Reviewers were experienced in child protective investigations and a certified DCF QA Reviewer with the exception of one Sheriff Reviewer who was an Assistant Program Administrator. All DCF Reviewers were certified DCF QA Reviewers. The Peer Review team did not collect or analyze cost data for the cost efficiency component of this evaluation. The Department internally developed the cost data portion of the report. Costs per Sheriff were simply based on Legislative Appropriation.

20

REVIEW INSTRUMENTS CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS RECORD REVIEW The Peer Review team conducted a review of the 65 selected files, 35 closed judicial investigations and 30 open in-home investigations. For the closed abuse reports under review the Peer Reviewers were provided the original investigation files. Seminole County Sheriff Office provided files electronically. Each reviewer was provided full FSFN computer access for review of case records electronically as needed. The QA Closed Record review tool was modeled years ago by the former DCF QA closed record tool. ASSESSING PERFORMANCE The rating on the file reviews used a four-step scale with four possible numerical scores. Ratings used were “not achieved,” “partially achieved,” “substantially achieved” and “achieved.” Point values were assigned as follows:

0 - Not Achieved 5 - Partially Achieved 7 - Substantially Achieved 9 - Achieved

Overall performance was the sum of the indicator scores, divided by the maximum possible score, which produced a percentage. Using the performance categories, the derived percentages translate into the following performance levels:

Passing 80 -100 % Non-Passing 0 - 79 %

OUTCOME MEASURES ATTAINMENT

MEASURES AND STANDARDS

Subsection 39.3065(3)(b), F.S., requires that the Sheriffs operate in accordance with the performance standards and outcome measures established by the Legislature for protective investigations conducted by the Department. The General Appropriations Act sets forth appropriations allocated through multi-year Grant Agreements with the seven Sheriff Offices performing child protective investigations. The Grant Agreements cite three performance measures for the Sheriffs and the Department’s circuits/region:

1. One hundred percent (100%) of investigations commenced within 24 hours,

2. Eighty-five percent (85%) of victims seen within 24 hours of a report received, and

21

3. One hundred percent (100%) of Child Safety Assessment (CSA) reports reviewed by supervisors are in accordance with THE DEPARTMENT’s timeframes. The third performance measure is now an obsolescent process replaced with a five-day supervisory consultation requirement for investigations.

Sources of Data and Analysis Methods

The data for all three measures come from the FSFN management report, “Leader Board for Investigations.” The report lists performance for each Department Region and Sheriff’s Office that operates a child protective investigation program. The report period represents FY 2014 - 2015.

The algorithms for calculating the outcome measures are those established by the Department in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Policy and Budget as well as the substantive and appropriations committees of the Legislature having jurisdiction for the Department. The algorithms are as follows:

The first performance measure (Investigations commenced within 24 hours): The numerator is the number of reports commenced within 24 hours of receipt of the report. The denominator is the total number of reports closed in the report period.

The second performance measure (Victims seen within 24 hours of report received): The numerator is the number of victims listed in recorded reports. The denominator is the total number of victims seen within 24 hours as recorded in the FSFN computer system. This data is retrieved based on closed investigations from July 2014 through June 2015 in the Department published monthly report known as the Leader Board.

QUALITY PERFORMANCE

Listed under the following titled categories are core components of questions within the quality assurance (QA) tool for the closed case review:

Removal 1. Reasonable Efforts 2. Psychotropic Medication 3. Placement Priority 4. Home Study Initial Response 5. Background Checks 6. Victim Contact 7. Interviews with Victims 8. Observations of all Victims 9. Interviews with Adult Alleged Persons Responsible 10. Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) 11. Relevant Collateral Contacts 12. Contact with Reporter

22

13. Communication Between the Investigator and Case Manager 14. Child Protection Team 15. Children’s Legal Services Staffing 16. Supervisory review 17. Maltreatments 18. Safety Decision

The open cases reviewed using the initial processes of the Department’s Rapid Safety Feedback & Secondary Review process included the following items for cases that were from open from seven to10 days and meeting selection of Tier criteria referenced above. ITEM 1: Assessment of prior child abuse and neglect reports, prior services and criminal history: Are the prior child abuse and neglect reports, prior services, and criminal histories accurately used to assess patterns, potential danger threats, and the impact on child safety?

ITEM 2: Present Danger Assessment: Does the present danger assessment support present danger or the absences of present danger? ITEM 3: Initiation of a Present Danger Safety: Did the CPI implement a present danger safety plan that was sufficient to control the present danger threats identified?

ITEM 10: Supervisory Consultation and Guidance: Is the CPI Supervisor providing consultation, support and guidance to ensure sufficient information is collected to support a quality assessment and appropriate decision making? Both the closed and open cases reviewed are entered into an electronic format that captures the responses of the reviewer and identifies the reviewer’s assessment of each question are the results of the assessment on the above areas. This allows for immediate feedback at the end of the review via a prepared report for the Sheriff Office under review. The electronic program allows peer reviewers to complete an onsite stratification of the data at the conclusion of the review. The electronic program is capable of drilling down in the data to identify specific areas of concern by pinpointing a question and then identifying the unit, supervisor or child protective investigator responsible. This enables the program administrator to take action toward correcting any area of deficiency identified within any unit, or by the supervisor or investigator. Completed at each site, exit interviews with reviewers presented trends and information on cases they reviewed for management staff and supervisors. The finalized report fully documented all information discussed at the exit conferences. The review site receives the finalized report prior to the exit conference.

23

Manatee County Sheriff’s Office

The Manatee site visit was conducted September 14 through September 18, 2015. The reviewers were:

Joseph Paduano, Broward Sheriff’s Office Jay Saucer, Seminole Sheriff’s Office Jennifer Hollis, Seminole Sheriff’s Office Michelle Douthitt, Pasco Sheriff’s Office Rebecca Wilkinson-Shields, Pasco Sheriff’s Office Shawn Wilson, Pinellas Sheriff’s Office David Martine, DCF Central Region Quality Assurance (QA) Kate Smith, DCF Sun Coast Region Quality Assurance (QA)

Closed Casework Review: The review categories for each case reviewed with the QA tool are listed below in the left column. Listed to the right is the overall average score for each category based on the cumulative review of all closed investigation case files reviewed. Scoring: Zero – 9. Removal

1. Reasonable Efforts – Average agency score 9.00 2. Psychotherapeutic Medication – Average agency score 8.71 3. Placement Priority – Average agency score 8.44 4. Home Study – Average agency score 9.00

Initial Response

5. Background Checks – Average agency score 8.47 6. Victim Contact – Average agency score 9.00 7. Interviews with Victims – Average agency score 7.52 8. Observations of All Victims – Average agency score 9.00 9. Interviews with Alleged Person Responsible – Average agency score 8.30 10. Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) – Average agency score 9.00 11. Relevant Collateral Contacts – Average agency score 8.76 12. Contact with Reporter – Average agency score 8.18 13. Communication Between CPI & Case Manager

– Average agency score 7.20 14. Child Protection Team – Average agency score 9.00 15. Children’s Legal Services Staffing – Average agency score 9.00 16. Supervisory Review – Average agency score 8.94 17. Maltreatments – Average agency score 8.59 18. Safety Decision – Average agency score 8.39

Final Close Case Review Score for Manatee Sheriff: 92.73%

24

Open Casework Review: The review categories for each case reviewed with the Rapid Response Feedback & Secondary Case Review Tool are listed below. With the Rapid Safety Feedback QA Review process, the reviewer’s initial tool is usually focused on four of the total ten Items: 1, 2, 3, & 10. The first review is characteristically completed at the juncture of the 7th to 10th day and the follow up review assesses the investigative activities directed towards the safety of the children at 45th to 50th day open, or earlier if the CPI is bringing the case to closure sooner than the 45th day. For this 2015 Sheriff’s Peer Review process only the first review (7th to 10th days old) was completed with consults due to time constraints with the onsite review team. Reviewers and CPI’s did two consults on each case as required, to allow for follow up items to be addressed and re-reviewed. Listed to the right is the overall average score for each category based on the cumulative review of all open investigations reviewed with this process. Scoring: Zero – 9. ITEM 1: Assessment of prior child abuse and neglect reports, prior services and criminal history:

Are the prior child abuse and neglect reports, prior services, and criminal histories accurately used to assess patterns, potential danger threats, and the impact on child safety?

i. Assessment of Prior Abuse & Neglect Reports Score 9 ii. Assessment of Criminal Records Review Score 9

ITEM 2: Present Danger Assessment:

Does the present danger assessment support present danger or the absences of present danger?

ITEM 3: Initiation of a Present Danger Safety: Did the CPI implement a present danger safety plan that was sufficient to control the present danger threats identified? (If applicable) Score 8.57

ITEM 10: Supervisory Consultation and Guidance:

Is the CPI Supervisor providing consultation, support and guidance to ensure sufficient information is collected to support a quality assessment and appropriate decision making? Score 8.87

Final Open Rapid Safety Feedback Score for Manatee Sheriff: 95.25%

25

Pasco County Sheriff’s Office The Pasco site visit was conducted October 26 through October 30, 2015. The reviewers were:

Joseph Paduano, Broward Sheriff’s Office Jay Saucer, Seminole Sheriff’s Office Jennifer Hollis, Seminole Sheriff’s Office Melissa Lancsarics, Manatee Sheriff’s Office Kathleen Mathews, Hillsborough Sheriff’s Office Shawn Wilson, Pinellas Sheriff’s Office David Martine, DCF Central Region Quality Assurance (QA) Matthew Parkinson, DCF Suncoast Region Quality Assurance (QA)



Initial Response 5. Background Checks – Average agency score 8.54 6. Victim Contact – Average agency score 9.00 7. Interviews with Victims – Average agency score 8.90 8. Observations of All Victims – Average agency score 8.89 9. Interviews with Alleged Person Responsible – Average agency score 8.76 10. Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) – Average agency score 9.00 11. Relevant Collateral Contacts – Average agency score 9.00 12. Contact with Reporter – Average agency score 8.44 13. Communication Between CPI & Case Manager

Average agency score 9.00 14. Child Protection Team – Average agency score 8.31 15. Children’s Legal Services Staffing – Average agency score 9.00 16. Supervisory Review – Average agency score 9.00 17. Maltreatments – Average agency score 8.43 18. Safety Decision – Average agency score 8.83

Final Close Case Review Score for Pasco Sheriff: 98.01%

26



iii. Assessment of Prior Abuse & Neglect Reports Score 9 iv. Assessment of Criminal Records Review Score 9



ITEM 3: Initiation of a Present Danger Safety:

Did the CPI implement a present danger safety plan that was sufficient to control the present danger threats identified? (If applicable) Score 9


Is the CPI Supervisor providing consultation, support and guidance to ensure sufficient information is collected to support a quality assessment and appropriate decision making? Score 9

Final Open Rapid Safety Feedback Score for Pasco Sheriff: 100%

27

Broward County Sheriff’s Office

The Broward site visit was conducted October 4 through 8, 2015. The reviewers were:

Jay Saucer, Seminole Sheriff’s Office Jennifer Hollis Seminole Sheriff’s Office Shawn Wilson, Pinellas Sheriff’s Office Michelle Douthitt, Pasco Sheriff’s Office Kathleen Mathews, Hillsborough Sheriff’s Office Melissa Lancsarics, Manatee Sheriff’s Office Bill Raton, DCF Central Region (QA Specialist) Atarri Hall, DCF Central Office (QA Specialist)



Initial Response



Final Close Case Review Score for Broward Sheriff: 97.53%

28



v. Assessment of Prior Abuse & Neglect Reports Score 9 vi. Assessment of Criminal Records Review Score 8.86




Did the CPI implement a present danger safety plan that was sufficient to control the present danger threats identified? (If applicable) Score 8.93



Final Open Rapid Safety Feedback Score for Broward Sheriff: 99.25%

29

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office

Hillsborough site visit conducted November 2 through November 5, 2015. The reviewers were:

Joseph Paduano, Broward Sheriff’s Office Jay Saucer, Seminole Sheriff’s Office Jennifer Hollis, Seminole Sheriff’s Office Joyce Edick, Manatee Sheriff’s Office Michelle Douthitt, Pasco Sheriff’s Office Shawn Wilson, Pinellas Sheriff’s Office Kelly Faircloth, DCF Northwest Region, Circuit 2 Holly Cummings, DCF Northwest Region, Circuit 2




Average agency score 9.00 14. Child Protection Team – Average agency score 9.00 15. Children’s Legal Services Staffing – Average agency score 9.00 16. Supervisory Review – Average agency score 9.00 17. Maltreatments – Average agency score 8.51 18. Safety Decision – Average agency score 8.89

Final Close Case Review Score for Hillsborough Sheriff: 96.92%

30


Are the prior child abuse and neglect reports, prior services, and criminal histories accurately used to assess patterns, potential danger threats, and the impact on child safety? vii. Assessment of Prior Abuse & Neglect Reports Score 9 viii. Assessment of Criminal Records Review Score 8.87

ITEM 2: Present Danger Assessment: Does the present danger assessment support present danger or the absences of present danger?





Final Open Rapid Safety Feedback Score for Hillsborough Sheriff: 98.70%

31

Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Pinellas site visit conducted September 28 through October 1, 2015. The reviewer team was as follows:

Joseph Paduano, Broward Sheriff’s Office Jay Saucer, Seminole Sheriff’s Office Michelle Douthitt, Pasco Sheriff’s Office Joyce Edick, Manatee Sheriff’s Office Robert Wilson, Manatee Sheriff’s Office Kathleen Matthews, Hillsborough Sheriff’s Office Brian McDuffie, DCF Northeast Region Quality Assurance (QA) Shawn Creney, DCF Suncoast Region Quality Assurance (QA)





Final Close Case Review Score for Pinellas Sheriff: 99.42%

32


Are the prior child abuse and neglect reports, prior services, and criminal histories accurately used to assess patterns, potential danger threats, and the impact on child safety? ix. Assessment of Prior Abuse & Neglect Reports Score 9 x. Assessment of Criminal Records Review Score 9







Final Open Rapid Safety Feedback Score for Pinellas Sheriff: 99.81%

33

Seminole County Sheriff’s Office Seminole site visit conducted on August 31 through September 4, 2015. The reviewers were:

Joseph Paduano, Broward Sheriff’s Office Joyce Edick, Manatee Sheriff’s Office Connie Keehner, Manatee Sheriff’s Office Kathleen Mathews, Hillsborough Sheriff’s Office Michelle Douthitt, Pasco Sheriff’s Office Rebecca Wilkinson-shields, Pasco Sheriff’s Office Shawn Wilson, Pinellas Sheriff’s Office Bill Ratay, DCF Central Region Quality Assurance John Lewis, DCF Central Region Quality Assurance



Initial Response



Final Close Case Review Score for Seminole Sheriff: 97.56%

34


Are the prior child abuse and neglect reports, prior services, and criminal histories accurately used to assess patterns, potential danger threats, and the impact on child safety? xi. Assessment of Prior Abuse & Neglect Reports Score 9 xii. Assessment of Criminal Records Review Score 9




Did the CPI implement a present danger safety plan that was sufficient to control the present danger threats identified? (If applicable) Score 9


Is the CPI Supervisor providing consultation, support and guidance to ensure sufficient information is collected to support a quality assessment and appropriate decision making? Score 9

Final Open Rapid Safety Feedback Score for Seminole Sheriff: 100%

35

OUTCOME MEASURES ATTAINMENT The performance measures listed within the Sheriffs’ Grant Agreement determined outcome performance attainment. Data is from the Florida Safe Families Network (FSFN) management reports generated monthly and based on closed report information. Noted below are three measures with their statutory or agency basis:

I One hundred percent (100%) of investigations commenced within 24 hours

FSFN captures this performance measure on reports coded in-home and institutional. The special condition reports and reports closed as “duplicate” or “no-jurisdiction” are not applicable to this measure. The performance measure is in the Sheriffs’ Grant Agreements. Based foremost on Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code also references this performance measure. Subsection 39.201(5), Florida Statutes, in part states:

“If it appears that the immediate safety or well-being of a child is endangered, that the family may flee or the child will be unavailable for purposes of conducting a child protective investigation, or that the facts otherwise so warrant, the Department shall commence an investigation immediately, regardless of the time of day or night. In all other child abuse, abandonment, or neglect cases, a child protective investigation shall be commenced within 24 hours after receipt of the report. ”

II Percent of child victims seen within 24 hours [Target goal 85%] FSFN captures this performance measure on reports coded in-home and institutional. The special condition reports and reports closed as “duplicate” or “no-jurisdiction” are not applicable to this measure. The performance measure is based on 65C-29.003(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) which states:

“Commencement of the investigation is the first attempt to complete an on-site visit for the purpose of making a face-to-face contact with the child victim of the report within twenty-four hours of acceptance of the report...”

Subsection 39.302(1), Florida Statutes, references this performance measure. The subsection states in part:

“…the Department shall initiate a child protective investigation within the timeframe established under s. 39.201(5)...”

36

III One hundred percent (100%) of reports reviewed by supervisors within 72 hours

The FSFN system has made this performance measure on reports coded in-home outdated. DCF has incorporated in the Florida Safety Decision Making Methodology (FSDMM) processes a five-day supervisory consultation requirement. The present practice has ‘Initial’ supervisory consultations mandatory for all cases and they are to be completed within five calendar days from the Screening Decision Date/Time of the Intake. DCF presently has not developed statewide agency or Circuit management/performance reports to capture compliance to the supervisory consultation.

Annual Outcomes for Commencements of Reports within 24 hours This performance outcome is significant, as Florida Statutes require the Department to be capable of receiving and investigating reports of known or suspected child abuse, abandonment, or neglect, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In FY 2014–2015, child protective investigators handled 209,320 initial and additional reports as well as special condition referrals9. Of this number, 82% (170,994) were regular initial abuse reports; 8% (16,970) were special condition intakes, and 10% (21,356) were additional reports. All of these required an initial 24-hour or immediate response with the following exceptions:

1) “Parent Needs Assistance” referrals permitted by Department protocol may be handled outside of the customary 24-hour face-to-face commencement response.

2) “Foster Care Referrals” (FCR) permitted by Department protocol to be commenced within 48-hours if initial circumstances warrant. FCR are transferred to the local community-based care licensing agency for handling and accounted for 1,560 intakes or .7% of the screened-in intakes for the fiscal year.

Calls received at the Florida Abuse Hotline with supplemental information (with no additional allegations of harm on open investigations), were not referenced or added statistically to the total number of reports received, since supplemental reports do not require additional child protection investigative actions. There were 24,548 supplemental intakes added to open investigations in FY 2014-2015; averaging 2,045 supplemental reports accepted monthly. Department FSFN performance reports exclude special conditions referrals from being included in the statistical data tracking on this measure. Therefore, this data would exclude child-on-child sexual abuse referrals, foster care referrals, parent unavailable referrals, and parent needs assistance referrals. The data provided in the statewide Leader Board also excludes those report commencements that are associated with an additional report. Finally, this report also excludes those investigation cases coded closed as being a duplicate or as no-jurisdiction. The computer system, FSFN, therefore selects data only associated with initial commencements, not additional calls and those closed in a traditional fashion.

37

If it appears that the immediate safety or well-being of a child is endangered, the family may flee, the child will be unavailable for purposes of conducting a child protective investigation, or that the facts otherwise so warrant, the Department is required to commence an investigation immediately. In all other child abuse, abandonment, or neglect cases, a child protective investigation commences within 24 hours upon receipt of a report. These statistics are therefore, based on those initial reports that closed each month. They would exclude additional reports and special condition cases. The data also makes no hourly value difference between an immediate response and a 24-hour response. If the data reflected a commencement within 24 hours of report acceptance both are in compliance.

Sheriff / District Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-152014/2015

Average

District 01 100.00 99.84 100.00 99.73 100.00 100.00 99.84 99.82 99.86 100.00 100.00 99.88 99.91

District 02 99.83 99.61 100.00 99.65 99.63 99.53 99.81 99.59 99.82 100.00 99.69 99.74 99.74

District 03 100.00 100.00 99.53 99.59 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.53 99.80 99.82 99.80 99.69 99.81

District 04 99.74 99.80 99.69 99.90 99.38 99.73 99.38 99.89 99.72 99.26 99.91 99.74 99.68

District 07 99.68 99.93 99.93 99.87 99.77 99.82 99.79 99.71 99.86 99.59 99.15 99.35 99.70

District 08 99.51 99.87 99.86 99.70 100.00 99.37 99.86 99.53 100.00 99.76 99.87 99.78 99.76

District 09 / Circuit 15 99.64 99.55 99.85 99.87 99.84 100.00 100.00 99.85 99.44 100.00 99.88 99.79 99.81

District 11 99.83 99.46 99.76 99.64 99.53 99.77 99.70 99.78 99.53 99.80 99.82 99.42 99.67

District 12 99.86 100.00 99.43 99.42 99.84 99.60 99.69 99.13 99.69 99.87 99.60 99.66 99.65

District 13 99.88 100.00 100.00 99.88 99.89 99.88 99.65 99.86 99.90 99.53 99.68 99.70 99.82

District 14 99.59 99.85 99.53 100.00 99.85 99.73 99.86 99.55 99.47 99.71 99.75 99.60 99.71

District 15 99.77 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.76 99.48 99.19 99.55 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.81

Suncoast District 100.00 99.50 100.00 99.55 99.58 99.63 99.77 99.72 99.58 99.73 98.78 99.63 99.62

DCF Average 99.76 99.81 99.81 99.77 99.77 99.76 99.75 99.67 99.69 99.72 99.67 99.64 99.74

Broward Sheriff 99.80 99.79 99.79 99.90 99.81 99.66 99.69 99.51 99.82 99.00 100.00 99.83 99.72

Hillsborough Sheriff 99.78 99.87 99.88 99.89 99.87 99.75 99.59 99.73 99.52 99.50 99.66 99.43 99.71

Manatee Sheriff 99.66 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.00 99.70 99.63 100.00 99.68 99.67 99.30 99.35 99.67

Pasco Sheriff 99.74 99.66 100.00 99.73 99.54 99.23 100.00 99.39 99.77 100.00 99.78 99.39 99.69

Pinellas Sheriff 100.00 100.00 99.84 100.00 100.00 99.68 100.00 99.69 99.87 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.92

Seminole Sheriff 100.00 99.56 99.32 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.61 99.64 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.34 99.79

Sheriff Average 99.83 99.84 99.82 99.91 99.76 99.69 99.75 99.64 99.76 99.78 99.84 99.63 99.77

DCF Average 99.76 99.81 99.81 99.77 99.77 99.76 99.75 99.67 99.69 99.72 99.67 99.64 99.74

Sheriff Average 99.83 99.84 99.82 99.91 99.76 99.69 99.75 99.64 99.76 99.78 99.84 99.63 99.77

Statewide average 99.78 99.82 99.81 99.81 99.77 99.74 99.75 99.67 99.71 99.73 99.71 99.64 99.75

In-home & Institutional Report Commencements within 24-Hours

10

For FY 2014-2015, the Sheriff Offices averaged 99.77% for commencement in 24 hours. The outcome measure average for Sheriff Offices decreased slightly from 99.80% in the prior fiscal year. The average for the Department in FY 2014-2015 was 99.74% for commencement in 24 hours, decreasing from the prior fiscal year which was 99.86%.

The overall statewide average for FY 2014-2015 was 99.75 decreasing from FY 2013-2014 that was 99.84%.

10

Data source: DCF FSFN “Child Investigation Leader Board Statewide by District by Agency” monthly reports for July 2014 through June 2015.

38


Overall, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office (BSO) for the FY 2014-2015 averaged 99.72 for commencements in 24-hours. Statewide the average for the fiscal year was 99.74%. Broward’s commencement rate increased in FY 2014-2015 from 99.62% in the prior fiscal year.

11

11

Chart data from page 38 chart. The data was extracted from Data source: DCF FSFN “Child Investigation Leader Board Statewide by District by Agency” monthly reports for July 2014 through June 2015.

39

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office in FY 2014-2015 averaged 99.71% while the statewide average rate was 99.75%. Hillsborough County Sheriff decreased from the prior FY 2013-2014 that was 99.81%, as did the statewide average rate that was 99.84%.

12

12


40

Manatee County Sheriff’s Office

In FY 2014-2015 the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office averaged 99.67% while the statewide average was 99.75%. Both Manatee Sheriff and the statewide average rate decreased from the prior FY 2013-2014 when Manatee was 99.79% and the statewide rate was 99.84%. Manatee did have commencement outcomes of 100% for four of the twelve months.

13

13


41

Pasco County Sheriff’s Office

The Pasco County Sheriff’s Office averaged 99.69% on commencement outcomes for the FY 2014–2015 while the statewide average commencement outcome was 99.75%. Both Pasco Sheriff and the statewide average rate decreased from the prior FY 2013-2014 when Pasco Sheriff was at 99.95% and the statewide rate was 99.84%.

14

14


42

Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office

The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office averaged 99.92% on 24-hour commencement outcomes for FY 2014-2015 that exceeded the statewide average rate of 99.75%. Pinellas Sheriff for 8 months was at 100% compliance. Pinellas was the highest-ranking overall among all Circuits & Sheriff in FY 2014-2015.

15

15


43

Seminole County Sheriff’s Office

The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office was at 100% compliance for 7 months of the 12 months in the fiscal year. For the FY 2014-2015, they were at 99.79% that was above the statewide average. Seminole had a slight decrease from the prior year when they were at a 99.82% outcome. Statewide for FY 2014–2015 the average was at 99.75% that decreased from the prior FY of 99.84%.

44

Annual Outcomes for Victims Seen Within 24 Hours of Case Received

Sheriff’s Grant Agreements include the performance measure of 85% of child victims being seen within 24 hours of report receipt. Florida practice amended the policy to reflect the final Florida Abuse Hotline decision time to accept the intake call versus the time of the phone call being received. The data reflects the time measure now from “decision time” versus “report received time.” FSFN captures this performance measure on reports coded in-home and institutional. The special condition reports and reports closed as “duplicate” or “no-jurisdiction” are not applicable to this measure. The performance measure is based on 65C-29.003(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) that states:

“Commencement of the investigation is the first attempt to complete an on-site visit for the purpose of making a face-to-face contact with the child victim of the report within twenty-four hours of acceptance of the report...”

Subsection 39.302(1), Florida Statutes, references this performance measure. The subsection states in part:

“…the Department shall initiate a child protective investigation within the timeframe established under s. 39.201(5)...”

The data information for this outcome came from data pulled from FSFN closed investigation reports each month from July 2014 through June 2015 in a statewide report referred to as the Leader Board.

Sheriffs/Districts Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-152014/2015

fiscal Year

District 01 83.31 83.13 81.70 84.43 86.90 88.28 89.48 86.06 84.37 91.55 87.64 86.48 86.11

District 02 84.24 84.94 83.15 85.94 82.11 85.14 82.92 85.13 81.33 84.70 86.71 83.97 84.19

District 03 87.97 85.71 83.96 86.25 84.58 83.42 82.47 84.57 82.10 84.01 82.38 78.02 83.79

District 04 85.63 87.54 85.88 86.55 87.66 89.17 83.87 85.84 85.55 88.04 86.34 87.05 86.59

District 07 87.47 87.42 87.33 88.75 89.14 89.98 89.55 89.71 88.14 87.78 87.27 87.64 88.35

District 08 79.25 78.87 84.67 83.30 83.44 81.33 82.34 82.54 82.90 83.93 83.46 85.22 82.60

District 09 92.03 93.21 93.80 93.90 95.52 95.33 92.29 91.46 92.60 93.23 91.99 92.39 93.15

District 11 81.95 84.34 86.97 86.12 88.40 87.39 84.63 86.23 84.45 84.64 82.59 85.37 85.26

District 12 91.04 89.70 87.78 91.21 91.43 90.41 90.92 88.41 91.66 89.29 89.03 86.29 89.76

District 13 90.17 93.35 88.35 91.02 89.09 92.42 90.90 90.03 89.85 91.73 88.98 88.88 90.40

District 14 89.82 87.66 88.94 95.42 90.89 93.41 93.86 92.76 90.85 91.27 91.23 90.44 91.38

District 15 91.14 93.08 89.98 92.80 93.97 94.52 90.15 90.76 91.91 92.52 92.87 93.40 92.26


DCF Average 86.71 87.09 86.69 88.61 88.36 88.94 87.88 87.64 87.18 88.45 87.12 87.04 87.64

Broward Sheriff 83.27 83.67 79.69 84.60 85.94 84.22 82.90 83.68 83.19 82.06 82.60 83.77 83.30


Manatee Sheriff 90.63 89.14 94.35 92.21 93.52 91.98 94.42 91.46 87.36 88.68 88.44 89.92 91.01

Pasco Sheriff 91.29 91.56 91.56 91.47 89.78 85.94 89.51 89.18 88.89 89.73 89.22 84.86 89.42



Sheriff Average 88.72 88.24 88.70 90.65 90.57 89.52 89.13 89.67 88.76 87.85 88.82 87.12 88.98

DCF Average 86.71 87.09 86.69 88.61 88.36 88.94 87.88 87.64 87.18 88.45 87.12 87.04 87.64

Sheriff Average 88.72 88.24 88.70 90.65 90.57 89.52 89.13 89.67 88.76 87.85 88.82 87.12 88.98

statewide average 87.22 87.38 87.22 89.14 88.95 89.09 88.20 88.18 87.61 88.29 87.56 87.05 87.99

In-home & Institutional Reports: Victims Seen within 24-Hours

16

16

Data extracted from FSFN monthly reports titled, Statewide Child Investigations Leader Board by Agency.

45

The Statewide average rate was 87.99 with Sheriff Office averaging 88.96 and DCF averaging 87.64%.


The Broward County Sheriff’s Office in FY 2014-2015 averaged 83.30% for the performance outcome of victims being seen within 24 hours. The statewide average rate was 87.99%. Both Broward and statewide annual averages decreased from the prior fiscal year. The Department has set the performance measure to be met at 85%.

17

17


46


The Hillsborough County Sheriff averaged 91.11% for FY 2014-2015. This was Hillsborough Sheriff’s second consecutive annualized increase. In FY 2013-2014 Hillsborough was at 90.83% and in FY 2012-2013 at 86.29%. The statewide average was 87.99% in FY 2014-2015. Statewide the average decreased for the second consecutive year from 90.53% in FY 2013-2014 and 91.25% in FY 2012-2013.

18

18

18


47

Manatee County Sheriff

The Manatee County Sheriff’s Office averaged 91.01% for FY 2014-2015 in the performance measure of seeing victim children within 24 hours for the fiscal year. Manatee Sheriff exceeded the statewide average 11 of 12 months. The statewide average was 87.99% a decrease from FY 2013-2014 when at 90.53%.

19

19

19


48


The Pasco County Sheriff’s Office averaged 89.42% 91.34% for FY 2014-2015 in the performance measure of victims being recorded seen within 24 hours. They decreased in this performance from their prior fiscal year outcome of 91.34%. Pasco did exceed the statewide annual average and exceeded statewide monthly average in ten of the twelve fiscal months. The statewide average decreased to 87.99 in FY 2014-2015 from 90.53% in FY 2013-2014.

20

20


49


The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office averaged 93.93 for seeing victims within 24 hours of case received for FY 2014–2015. Pinellas Sheriff Office did extremely well statewide and exceeded all other regions and Sheriff’s in the Florida this fiscal year. The statewide average of 87.99% was down from the prior fiscal year when at 90.53%.

21

21


50


The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office in FY 2014-2015 averaged 87.79% with the performance measure of seeing victims within 24 hours of intake received. The statewide average was 87.99%. Seminole declined minimally from the prior fiscal year when at down from 88.77%. The statewide average also decreased from FY 2013-2014 when at 90.53%.

22

22


51

ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Other Leader Board Outcome Performance Measures, although not in the Sheriff Grant Agreements, are important to overall casework practice statewide. Overall, in these additional Leader Board measures, the Sheriffs’ Office averages exceeded the statewide averages.

First Submission for Supervisory Disposition Review by 45th Day FSFN captures this performance measure on reports coded in-home and institutional. The special condition reports and reports closed as “duplicate” or “no-jurisdiction” are not applicable to this measure. Department Leader Board data captures this performance measure.

The Department’s Quality Delivery System (QDS) standards form the basis for this performance measure. Investigations submitted by the 45th day for first closure review to allow for follow up two weeks before 60-day closure. In this category, the Sheriff Offices averaged for the FY 2014-2015 fiscal year 88.77% for first submission by 45th day. DCF average was 70.60%. Statewide, the average was 73.40% a decrease from FY 2013-2014 when it was statewide at 95.17%.

Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15

2014/2015

fiscal year

average

District 01 98.41 98.08 96.33 95.23 95.22 96.46 97.65 96.38 96.46 98.00 97.00 95.57 96.73

District 02 69.51 60.86 52.04 48.32 39.31 37.58 39.93 48.77 43.54 32.88 21.93 17.62 42.69

District 03 97.00 96.39 90.40 83.31 70.50 81.75 88.01 89.95 81.25 80.33 65.56 45.88 80.86

District 04 90.92 92.37 89.48 85.21 74.61 72.42 78.84 78.08 73.70 70.23 65.54 58.51 77.49

District 07 90.45 90.36 89.51 73.23 49.54 44.46 37.38 47.75 47.06 37.23 23.81 23.80 54.55

District 08 93.58 95.47 91.75 79.00 61.05 43.45 37.67 35.30 30.34 28.64 27.61 26.43 54.19

District 09 99.76 99.85 99.26 99.87 99.69 99.75 99.87 99.85 99.21 99.62 99.51 98.21 99.54

District 11 88.78 89.90 90.46 92.49 95.01 95.94 94.92 94.73 93.08 93.36 89.40 87.58 92.14

District 12 91.30 87.86 91.27 88.55 80.22 74.47 73.74 64.92 55.73 44.89 43.33 42.89 69.93

District 13 72.84 67.37 50.44 36.79 24.67 15.40 16.86 17.33 16.89 17.50 18.90 24.82 31.65

District 14 63.42 56.88 71.97 75.25 69.04 54.69 58.17 68.12 62.75 38.37 26.78 27.98 56.12

District 15 91.63 94.25 95.35 97.30 95.80 93.11 95.58 96.77 99.78 100.00 98.97 100.00 96.55


DCF Average 87.70 86.26 84.71 79.26 68.04 64.03 62.73 95.06 61.37 56.62 51.37 50.10 70.60

Broward Sheriff 93.40 93.66 98.63 98.36 97.28 98.04 98.02 97.05 96.41 97.04 96.16 98.82 96.91


Manatee Sheriff 94.58 91.43 89.07 86.50 85.95 82.83 85.71 84.72 80.84 70.07 59.86 53.75 80.44

Pasco Sheriff 98.68 95.95 96.66 96.25 96.08 84.69 76.73 58.41 56.88 42.97 35.94 39.55 73.23



Sheriff Average 93.66 95.22 95.26 94.80 94.02 91.62 91.46 88.43 87.74 81.62 76.13 75.30 88.77

DCF Average 87.70 86.26 84.71 79.26 68.04 64.03 62.73 95.06 61.37 56.62 51.37 50.10 70.60

Sheriff Average 93.66 95.22 95.26 94.80 94.02 91.62 91.46 88.43 87.74 81.62 76.13 75.30 88.77

statewide average 89.21 87.22 87.56 83.39 74.86 71.31 69.99 71.23 68.44 63.25 57.79 56.60 73.40

1st Submission of Initial Recommended Disposition by 45th Day

23

23

Chart data from page 38 chart. The data was extracted from Data source: DCF FSFN “Child Investigation Leader Board

Statewide by District by Agency” monthly reports for July 2014 through June 2015.

52

Investigation Closure by the 60th Day

FSFN captures this performance measure on reports coded in-home and institutional. Special condition reports, duplicate and no-jurisdiction intakes are not applicable to this measure. The basis for this performance measure is section 39.301(16), Florida Statutes, which states:

“The Department shall complete its protective investigation within 60 days after receiving the initial report, unless: (a) There is also an active, concurrent criminal investigation that is continuing beyond the 60-day period and the closure of the protective investigation may compromise successful criminal prosecution of the child abuse or neglect case, in which case the closure date shall coincide with the closure date of the criminal investigation and any resulting legal action. (b) In child death cases, the final report of the medical examiner is necessary for the Department to close its investigation and the report has not been received within the 60-day period, in which case the report closure date shall be extended to accommodate the report. (c) A child who is necessary to an investigation has been declared missing by the Department, a law enforcement agency, or a court, in which case the 60-day period shall be extended until the child has been located or until sufficient information exists to close the investigation despite the unknown location of the child.”

The Sheriff Offices averaged 97.94% for investigations being closed by the 60th day in FY 2014–2015. DCF average was 93.55%. Overall, the statewide FY 2014-2015 average was 94.70% that was down from the FY 2013-2014 when at 98.15%.

Sheriffs/Districts Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15

Fiscal Year

14/15

average

District 01 99.13 98.88 97.88 97.68 97.84 98.09 98.75 99.10 99.01 98.67 97.68 97.41 98.34

District 02 83.80 76.91 72.28 75.58 67.82 76.71 73.51 78.81 82.47 67.12 57.23 66.19 73.20

District 03 94.89 95.71 90.87 88.73 87.66 84.56 90.50 89.49 86.52 78.69 78.08 79.32 87.09

District 04 99.30 98.68 98.98 98.40 98.86 98.55 99.07 98.46 97.93 94.98 95.96 94.04 97.77

District 07 96.41 96.95 96.55 95.61 95.61 93.64 90.81 94.64 93.59 92.40 92.04 94.25 94.38

District 08 99.63 98.49 98.60 98.33 97.74 98.61 99.03 98.44 99.37 98.53 97.75 98.57 98.59

District 09 99.28 98.65 98.53 99.50 99.69 99.01 98.80 99.27 98.31 98.34 97.40 97.27 98.67

District 11 87.95 87.33 92.51 91.67 97.18 98.36 98.68 99.01 98.69 95.12 96.14 96.36 94.92

District 12 96.35 95.43 93.56 86.67 80.06 82.05 90.72 85.17 75.42 68.47 80.05 82.45 84.70

District 13 89.88 95.41 92.01 87.04 87.83 94.28 91.63 90.65 94.09 94.75 95.13 95.08 92.32

District 14 95.21 97.37 97.80 97.27 96.75 96.25 93.52 95.79 95.06 96.15 95.62 94.65 95.95

District 15 98.19 98.85 99.13 98.77 98.43 96.20 95.32 95.43 97.53 98.14 100.00 96.89 97.74

Suncoast Region 93.20 98.51 99.58 99.10 98.33 98.63 98.76 98.34 98.21 97.09 88.57 93.38 96.81

DCF Average 95.07 95.23 94.67 93.58 93.23 94.10 94.01 94.45 93.82 91.29 91.21 91.93 93.55

Broward Sheriff 97.93 97.15 98.84 100.00 98.74 98.81 99.58 98.40 98.83 98.47 98.95 99.16 98.74


Manatee Sheriff 98.64 100.00 96.36 97.80 95.99 98.19 98.17 100.00 98.70 95.39 94.37 83.06 96.39

Pasco Sheriff 98.95 97.30 99.49 97.05 97.47 96.17 97.78 95.11 97.44 92.45 91.74 97.57 96.54



Sheriff Average 98.42 98.27 98.43 98.72 98.29 97.56 98.03 98.21 98.85 97.12 96.83 96.53 97.94

DCF Average 95.07 95.23 94.67 93.58 93.23 94.10 94.01 94.45 93.82 91.29 91.21 91.93 93.55

Sheriff Average 98.42 98.27 98.43 98.72 98.29 97.56 98.03 98.21 98.85 97.12 96.83 96.53 97.94

Statewide Average 95.92 96.00 95.69 94.95 94.56 95.01 95.03 95.45 95.17 92.83 92.67 93.10 94.70

Investigations Closed by 60th Day

24

24


53

No Recurrence of Maltreatment in Six Months

No Recurrence of Maltreatment in six months is monitored against the federal Administration for Children and Families non-recurrence measure of 94.6%. The source: Non-Recurrence of Maltreatment Trend Report - Prepared by Child Welfare data support unit and recorded monthly on the Department Scorecard. The table below provides recurrence of maltreatment by sheriff and judicial circuit. The statewide average was 94.56% of verified victims with no-recurrence of maltreatment within six months of case closure.

Federal Standard: 94.60% 94.60% 94.60% 94.60% 94.60% 94.60%

Period:

Received July

2014 (Mar

2015)

Received Aug

2014 (Apr

2015)

Received

Sept 2014

(May 2015)

Received Oct

2014 (June

2015)

Received Nov

2014 (July

2015)

Received

Dec 2014

(Aug 2015)

Circuit / Sheriff

% Verified

Victims not

reabused in 6

months

% Verified

Victims not

reabused in 6

months

% Verified

Victims not

reabused in 6

months

% Verified

Victims not

reabused in 6

months

% Verified

Victims not

reabused in 6

months

% Verified

Victims not

reabused in 6

months

Circuit 01 91.71% 94.74% 97.76% 93.89% 95.68% 93.75% 94.59%

Circuit 02 88.14% 97.26% 98.53% 98.31% 89.09% 93.75% 94.18%

Circuit 03 93.48% 93.88% 95.92% 91.95% 88.46% 94.20% 92.98%

Circuit 04 93.67% 91.57% 96.01% 92.88% 94.57% 92.22% 93.49%

Circuit 05 96.73% 92.90% 90.59% 93.05% 95.33% 93.58% 93.70%

Circuit 06 / Pinellas Sheriff 94.16% 94.92% 95.20% 91.30% 91.44% 95.26% 93.71%

Circuit 06 /Pasco Sheriff 93.53% 95.45% 91.73% 92.26% 94.59% 99.13% 94.45%

Circuit 07 95.43% 97.04% 90.36% 94.55% 96.16% 94.67% 94.70%

Circuit 08 95.18% 90.12% 86.41% 93.18% 95.24% 93.67% 92.30%

Circuit 09 96.17% 95.95% 93.39% 94.79% 96.30% 94.81% 95.24%

Circuit 10 96.69% 89.83% 98.51% 97.62% 97.20% 94.89% 95.79%

Circuit 11 - Miami-Dade 94.56% 96.69% 93.48% 96.54% 95.03% 96.35% 95.44%

Circuit 12 96.43% 91.75% 98.11% 94.12% 94.12% 92.86% 94.57%

Circuit 12 / Manatee Sheriff 97.48% 93.43% 93.64% 96.61% 91.74% 97.37% 95.05%

Circuit 13 / Hillsborough Sheriff 98.93% 95.62% 98.02% 90.60% 94.52% 92.79% 95.08%

Circuit 14 97.44% 100.00% 96.08% 96.97% 97.96% 98.00% 97.74%

Circuit 15 - Palm Beach 98.13% 94.12% 94.92% 93.98% 93.90% 96.03% 95.18%

Circuit 16 - Monroe 94.44% 86.67% 89.29% 95.45% 85.00% 100.00% 91.81%

Circuit 17 / Broward Sheriff 95.43% 95.77% 93.41% 93.99% 92.66% 93.57% 94.14%

Circuit 18 97.33% 97.53% 100.00% 92.59% 94.29% 98.26% 96.67%

Circuit 18 / Seminole Sheriff 87.34% 92.65% 96.26% 92.78% 90.41% 89.61% 91.51%

Circuit 19 92.48% 92.91% 95.30% 98.48% 94.63% 91.67% 94.25%

Circuit 20 100.00% 98.95% 95.80% 93.55% 85.82% 95.15% 94.88%

Statewide Average 95.34% 94.90% 94.68% 94.06% 93.86% 94.53% 94.56%

Fiscal Year 2014-2015 - No Recurrance of Maltreatment in six months

Average

Information source: Department FSFN Child Protective Investigations Monthly Scorecard

54

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT The program management component for Sheriffs’ Offices has 24 specific program management standards. Each Sheriff’s locale has for several years maintained a standardized format document that is on-site. This is available to the lead person conducting the on-site review. The standards were mutually agreed to in 2010 and represent core standards in place with each Sheriff Office operation. These standards, specific to each Sheriff, were submitted to the Department initially in January 2010 and have not changed for this peer review. Each Sheriff’s Office continued in FY 2014-2015 to maintain these standards with descriptive explanations on-site that were available for inspection.

MISSION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1. [Standard] The Agency has a written statement of its mission, goals and objectives.

Policies and Procedures - 2. [Standard] The Agency has developed a written standard operating procedure.

Management Communication & Structure – 3. [Standard] There is evidence of frequent communication among District and Agency

management staff. 4. [Standard] The Agency has a clear and well understood system of accountability in place

for all levels of operational and management issues.

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

Facility & Equipment – The quality and consideration of the facility and equipment reflects the importance the agency places on its personnel and clients it serves.

5. [Standard] A safe and clean space for children awaiting placement is available. 6. [Standard] Agency maintains adequate computer equipment and lines for all

investigators and supervisors to have immediate access to FSFN. 7. [Standard] The Agency provides effective communications capabilities and equipment

for all investigators and supervisors. 8. [Standard] The agency has a uniform or dress code for investigative personnel which

projects a professional image in the community and when dealing with other associated agencies.

9. [Standard] The Agency provides for the safe and appropriate transportation of children taken into custody. Risk Management – The division should have a preventative plan, which could include training, policies, and other risk management tasks to minimize risk of injury or harm to personnel at the office, driving, with client contacts; as well as client safety and security.

10. [Standard] The Agency has addressed facility and personnel security.

AGENCY ADMINISTRATION

Agency Staffing and Personnel – 11. [Standard] The Agency demonstrates diligent efforts to maintain full staffing to

accomplish its mission. 12. [Standard] The Agency conducts criminal background checks in the screening of new

employees.

55

Job Descriptions – Job Descriptions set forth with essential functions and performance standards for each employee within the division.

13. [Standard] The Agency has prepared written job descriptions for the positions of child protective investigator and supervisors. Allegations of Misconduct – The division shall have an effective policy for responding to and handling thoroughly allegations made against personnel.

14. [Standard] The Agency has a directive program in place for dealing with complaints and allegations lodged against employees.

STAFF DEVELOPMENT

Training - The Sheriff Office is to have an orientation period for new personnel consistent with requirements set forth by the state for pre-service training certification, and their own program overview.

15. [Standard] The Agency provides training in addition to the minimum PDC requirement for newly hired investigators.

COMMUNICATION

Meetings 16. [Standard] The Agency holds supervisor staff meetings at least once per month.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

17. [Standard] Senior staff exercises regular monitoring and oversight of the Agency.

CHILD PROTECTION PRACTICE

The Sheriff Office is to have policies and procedures that provide for effective child protective investigations services pursuant to FL Statute 39.301. Core Values, Principles and Elements of an Effective Child Protective Response –

18. [Standard] The Agency provides analytical data entry and other investigative support to child protective investigators.

19. [Standard] The Agency has a reliable system in place to provide for responding to abuse reports on a 24 / 7 basis.

20. [Standard] The Agency has agreements and/or effective working relationships in place with law enforcement which provide for the joint investigation of reports of abuse, neglect or abandonment.

21. [Standard] The Agency demonstrates a consistent effort to assign and commence cases in a timely fashion.

22. [Standard] The Agency demonstrates consistent efforts to minimize the number of cases with victims and perpetrators not contacted.

23. [Standard] The Agency has an effective program in place for reducing or controlling the number of cases open after 60 days.

PREVENTION AND DIVERSION Family Centered Approach – The Agency seeks during investigations to support families when determining service needs and assessment and approach families with voluntary efforts when child safety permits. 24. [Standard] Agency makes full use of available front end voluntary services.

56

COST EFFICIENCY

This section provides an assessment of the cost efficiency based on the cost per report for initial, additional, and special conditions reports for the Sheriffs and DCF Regions. The number of reports handled by the Sheriff and DCF does not reflect added workload associated with “Parent Needs Assistance” referrals that sometimes require the assistance of a CPI. The chart on the following page provides expenditure and costs per report received data for FY 2014-2015. Dividing actual expenditures by the number of reports received determines the “Cost per Report.” The overall number of reports received increased by 4.7% as compared to SFY 2013-2014 statewide, whereas, expenditures increased by 11.55% as compared to FY 2013-2014. The chart on the following page provides expenditure and costs per report received data for FY 2014-2015. Dividing actual expenditures by the number of reports received determines the “Cost per Report.” For Sheriff Offices, the cost range was from a low of $914 per report received (Hillsborough) to a high of $1,179 per report received (Pinellas), with an overall total cost per report of $998. For the Department, the report breaks down costs and workload for each of the Department’s Regions that conduct Child Protective Investigations. Costs per report received for Regions ranged from a low of $849 (Southern Region) to a high of $1,037 (Northwest Region), with an overall total cost per report of $933. The difference between the total cost per report for Sheriff Offices and the Department Offices was $88.00.

Cost Per Report

AGENCY Cost Reports Cost Per Report Cost Reports Cost Per Report

Broward $14,565,620 14,722 $989 $15,052,477 15,944 $944

Hillsborough $12,113,155 12,401 $977 $11,849,942 12,963 $914

Manatee $3,616,705 4,504 $803 $4,717,888 4,698 $1,004

Pasco $5,540,975 5,647 $981 $6,211,757 5,906 $1,052

Pinellas $10,240,024 9,923 $1,032 $11,824,466 10,030 $1,179

Seminole $3,547,958 4,341 $817 $4,346,426 4,565 $952

All Sheriffs $49,624,437 51,538 $963 $54,002,956 54,106 $998

Northwest $15,598,646 18,488 $844 $17,359,378 20,442 $849

Northeast $28,366,409 33,449 $848 $32,122,247 34,990 $918

Suncoast $11,946,849 14,910 $801 $13,252,214 15,096 $878

Central $39,586,601 47,705 $830 $45,856,453 50,181 $914

Southeast $14,591,191 17,493 $834 $15,661,314 17,950 $872

Southern $14,541,002 15,364 $946 $16,119,074 15,542 $1,037

Department $124,630,698 147,409 $845 $140,370,680 154,201 $910

TOTAL $174,255,135 198,947 $876 $194,373,636 208,307 $933

Fiscal Year 2013-2014* Fiscal Year 2014-2015**

Data Source:

Reports for Sheriffs: DCF FSFN Monthly Report: Child Investigations Received by Intake Sequence Type – Statewide by

Agency

Reports for DCF: DCF FSFN Monthly Report: Child Investigations Received by Intake Sequence Type – Statewide by

County

57

Sheriff Cost Data: SFY 2013/2014 and SFY 2014-2015 General Appropriations Act adjusted for refunds on interest on the

advances and overpayments

Department Cost Data: IDS Query from Florida Information Accounting Resource (FLAIR) data as of June 30, 2015 and

certified forwards paid as of September 30, 2015.

Notes: Cost data excludes funds allocated to Sheriffs and DCF regions for training. The Department expenditures include actual expenditures by region, plus actual indirect cost earnings (12.84%) in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 THE Department expenditures include actual expenditures by region, plus actual indirect cost earnings (11.44%) in Fiscal Year 2013-2014. Reports exclude Parent Needs Assistance and CBC foster care referrals Costs for the Department were increased in FY 2014-15 due to the addition of 270 more FTEs.

Documents

ANNUAL PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT · Sheriffs’ program performance. That committee met with the respective Sheriffs and developed criteria mutually agreed upon for an